And lastly, the Second Amendment flat out guarantees our right to be able to defend ourselves, without limits and without compromise. Our armed forces, our police AND our politicians have sworn an oath to defend and UPHOLD the Constitution. UPHOLD!! That doesn't mean change the meaning of certain passages, it doesn't mean modify it to be what they want it to be, and it doesn't mean to ignore what they don't agree with. It means they are sworn to embrace it as is, and to work to make sure no enemy, foreign or domestic, attempts to change it or circumvent it for their own desires. The Second Amendment is not about firearm technology, any more than Free Speech has only to do with oral speech and not the Internet. People stating that "Well, the Second Amendment was written when they had muskets. They couldn't imagine the firepower of todays guns." That being the case, we'd have to change free speech (they couldn't have imagined the Internet), we'd have to change freedom of religion (they would never have imagined Islam being the most rapidly increasing religious population of the United States), we'd have to change freedom of the press (they'd have never imagined the mainstream media being so strongly controlled by one political party). I mean, what the Hell, let's change 'em all. Let's take away voting rights from women and minorities. Let's bring slavery back. Let's try Prohibition again, because I don't think they gave it a really good chance. Let's stop the term limits on the presidency so we can have Obama rig even more elections. Let's give Congress limitless power and take away all power from the State and Local governing bodies.

Thanks for weighing in M2K, you are much more informed than I. I do have some issue with those who are against gun control using the 2nd amendent beyond it's intentions. The 2nd amendment is about a "well regulated Militia" ("being necessary to the security of a free State") - let's not lose sight of this. It is not about having guns to hunt or defend one's residence as is often misrepresented. Now, if we want to base any argument on the 2nd amendment, we have to do so in the proper context.

I am not opposed to the forming of a Militia, which obviously needs guns/force - to keep our state free. Although as stated earlier, today a Militia has no chance against our well armed and trained military, but until the constitution is changed that is how the wording helps protect us. In fact, many would say we do have a right to "carry and bear arms" in conjunction with a organized militia and that was the intention of the 2nd amendment. Our interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd amendment seemed to have warped to me over time to a more "individualistic" representation to own guns.

I am not opposed to the forming of a Militia, which obviously needs guns/force - to keep our state free. Although as stated earlier, today a Militia has no chance against our well armed and trained military, but until the constitution is changed that is how the wording helps protect us. In fact, many would say we do have a right to "carry and bear arms" in conjunction with a organized militia and that was the intention of the 2nd amendment. Our interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd amendment seemed to have warped to me over time to a more "individualistic" representation to own guns.

To take this line of thinking a little further: "Shouldn't the US Govt ensure there is a weapon for each citizen as well as the appropriate training? "

Consider this: Many Conservatives state the only thing the Govt should be responsible for is our security / military as it is plainly stated in the Constitution. Considering as the 2nd Amendment states that we have the right to "A well regulated Militia" why isn't the US Govt held responsible for ensuring this?

That being said, could you imagine the uproar of the size of our Govt if this were to actually happen? How much would it cost to ensure that every citizen has a weapon, ammo, place to securely store as well as the appropriate training? Hmm, almost sounds like it would be akin to the US Military.....

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

March 4th, 2013, 1:50 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: What? No gun control thread?

Pablo wrote:

m2karateman wrote:

And lastly, the Second Amendment flat out guarantees our right to be able to defend ourselves, without limits and without compromise. Our armed forces, our police AND our politicians have sworn an oath to defend and UPHOLD the Constitution. UPHOLD!! That doesn't mean change the meaning of certain passages, it doesn't mean modify it to be what they want it to be, and it doesn't mean to ignore what they don't agree with. It means they are sworn to embrace it as is, and to work to make sure no enemy, foreign or domestic, attempts to change it or circumvent it for their own desires. The Second Amendment is not about firearm technology, any more than Free Speech has only to do with oral speech and not the Internet. People stating that "Well, the Second Amendment was written when they had muskets. They couldn't imagine the firepower of todays guns." That being the case, we'd have to change free speech (they couldn't have imagined the Internet), we'd have to change freedom of religion (they would never have imagined Islam being the most rapidly increasing religious population of the United States), we'd have to change freedom of the press (they'd have never imagined the mainstream media being so strongly controlled by one political party). I mean, what the Hell, let's change 'em all. Let's take away voting rights from women and minorities. Let's bring slavery back. Let's try Prohibition again, because I don't think they gave it a really good chance. Let's stop the term limits on the presidency so we can have Obama rig even more elections. Let's give Congress limitless power and take away all power from the State and Local governing bodies.

Thanks for weighing in M2K, you are much more informed than I. I do have some issue with those who are against gun control using the 2nd amendent beyond it's intentions. The 2nd amendment is about a "well regulated Militia" ("being necessary to the security of a free State") - let's not lose sight of this. It is not about having guns to hunt or defend one's residence as is often misrepresented. Now, if we want to base any argument on the 2nd amendment, we have to do so in the proper context.

I am not opposed to the forming of a Militia, which obviously needs guns/force - to keep our state free. Although as stated earlier, today a Militia has no chance against our well armed and trained military, but until the constitution is changed that is how the wording helps protect us. In fact, many would say we do have a right to "carry and bear arms" in conjunction with a organized militia and that was the intention of the 2nd amendment. Our interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd amendment seemed to have warped to me over time to a more "individualistic" representation to own guns.

Pablo, it's not that the founders believed that "being in a militia" was a condition of gun ownership, it's that the founders realized that firearms were NECESSARY to form the militia. They knew that we had to have guns under our beds, in our closets, and ready at hand TO BE ABLE TO FORM a militia against the govt. when and if the time ever became necessary. It IS an individualized right, rather than a collective right. Your argument flat out doesn't hold water with the thoughts of the founders of this country, or the Constitution of the United States. Read the wording of the 2nd amendment:

Quote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say it's the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it's the right of the people, of each and every INDIVIDUAL citizen, to keep and bear arms. And to that end, assault weapons, etc. SHOULD be legal.

Further, M2 already outlined it, and I agree, that the full force of the military of the United States would never, NEVER be used against its own citizens. 1) it's against International Law, 2) people aren't going to pull the trigger against their own family members, and 3) human rights activists in other countries would have a fit. That's what we preach to these 3rd world countries, we can't turn it around and get away with it here, period.

March 4th, 2013, 1:57 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12296

Re: What? No gun control thread?

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Pablo, it's not that the founders believed that "being in a militia" was a condition of gun ownership, it's that the founders realized that firearms were NECESSARY to form the militia. They knew that we had to have guns under our beds, in our closets, and ready at hand TO BE ABLE TO FORM a militia against the govt. when and if the time ever became necessary. It IS an individualized right, rather than a collective right. Your argument flat out doesn't hold water with the thoughts of the founders of this country, or the Constitution of the United States. Read the wording of the 2nd amendment:

Quote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say it's the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it's the right of the people, of each and every INDIVIDUAL citizen, to keep and bear arms. And to that end, assault weapons, etc. SHOULD be legal.

One small caveat to this 'interpretation', it seems as though there are / were 2 versions of the 2nd Amendment: 1 passed by Congress:

Quote:

As passed by the Congress:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

and another ratified by the States:

Quote:

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[13]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame ... ution#Text

the differences being in the punctuation, and as I'm sure we all know, punctuation can change the meaning.

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Further, M2 already outlined it, and I agree, that the full force of the military of the United States would never, NEVER be used against its own citizens. 1) it's against International Law, 2) people aren't going to pull the trigger against their own family members, and 3) human rights activists in other countries would have a fit. That's what we preach to these 3rd world countries, we can't turn it around and get away with it here, period.

Devil's Advocate here: 1)Where is your proof that the US would never break International Law? If I'm not mistaken, this has happened already. 2)They won't? I seem to recall a little thing called the Civil War which pitted families against each other daily; it didn't seem to end the war tho.3)With respect, but doesn't the so-called 'American Exceptionalism' mean that we can do what we want? We don't have to follow other countries' rules, right? Not too mention, in the event the US Govt would try to 'overthrow' its citizens, do you think it would matter whether or not the International community approved?

Wow. I haven't logged on this board since I started this topic and am surprised by the number of comments. Where to begin?

First of all is the fallacy that the US military is so powerful that a few gun nuts can't overtake them. The US military easily defeated the Iraqi and Afghani militaries in a few short months, yet was bogged down for years by insurgencies. Why can't that happen here? To further confound the situation, how many American soldiers do you think will follow orders to fire upon American citizens? As a former soldier, I swore an oath to the Constitution, NOT the government, So I guess you could imagine where my loyalties lies.

In case you didn't know, Obama said in 2008 that he wanted a civilian security force as well armed and funded as the US military. Well, he's got that now. The Department of Homeland Security just purchased 2700 Armored Personnel carriers and 1.6 billion rounds of hollow point ammunition. That's enough to shoot every American citizen 5 times and twice as much as was used in the Iraq war.They claim that the hollow point ammo is for target practice, but everyone knows that ball ammo is used for those purposes, while hollow points are used to kill people. Believe the lies if you will.

I'm ready. Are You?

_________________

March 4th, 2013, 3:46 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: What? No gun control thread?

TheRealWags wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Pablo, it's not that the founders believed that "being in a militia" was a condition of gun ownership, it's that the founders realized that firearms were NECESSARY to form the militia. They knew that we had to have guns under our beds, in our closets, and ready at hand TO BE ABLE TO FORM a militia against the govt. when and if the time ever became necessary. It IS an individualized right, rather than a collective right. Your argument flat out doesn't hold water with the thoughts of the founders of this country, or the Constitution of the United States. Read the wording of the 2nd amendment:

Quote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say it's the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it's the right of the people, of each and every INDIVIDUAL citizen, to keep and bear arms. And to that end, assault weapons, etc. SHOULD be legal.

One small caveat to this 'interpretation', it seems as though there are / were 2 versions of the 2nd Amendment: 1 passed by Congress:

Quote:

As passed by the Congress:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

and another ratified by the States:

Quote:

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[13]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame ... ution#Text

the differences being in the punctuation, and as I'm sure we all know, punctuation can change the meaning.

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Further, M2 already outlined it, and I agree, that the full force of the military of the United States would never, NEVER be used against its own citizens. 1) it's against International Law, 2) people aren't going to pull the trigger against their own family members, and 3) human rights activists in other countries would have a fit. That's what we preach to these 3rd world countries, we can't turn it around and get away with it here, period.

Devil's Advocate here: 1)Where is your proof that the US would never break International Law? If I'm not mistaken, this has happened already. 2)They won't? I seem to recall a little thing called the Civil War which pitted families against each other daily; it didn't seem to end the war tho.3)With respect, but doesn't the so-called 'American Exceptionalism' mean that we can do what we want? We don't have to follow other countries' rules, right? Not too mention, in the event the US Govt would try to 'overthrow' its citizens, do you think it would matter whether or not the International community approved?

Punctuation can make a big difference, but until you show me how it matters here, it's distinction without difference.

They're willing to break international law, hell, we do it all the time. Those "drone" flyovers, surveillance, and attacks against nations that we're not at war with, violate international sovereignty. That said, it's common knowledge in the international law community that there is only one universally held "norm" that they will take action on, genocide. If the U.S. government starts killing citizens en-mass countries like the UK and Germany will step up and take the lead. Germany being the front runner. Everyone is so scared about China, but China is a cluster phuck waiting to happen. Their economy is falsely inflated, as is their currency and place in the world. Germany is established and owns a TON over here. They're not going to let their "investment" implode.

What's more... If that level of civil unrest happened here Canada would welcome opening its doors to allow Germany, etc. into their country to protect their interests. Further, the U.S. military may be powerful enough to quash a civil war, but they are not powerful enough to fight even ONE other super power AND it's citizens. It would be way too much and "they" would lose.

March 4th, 2013, 4:54 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10066Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: What? No gun control thread?

Wags, the meaning behind the Second Amendment is well documented. The Federalist Papers, writings by James Madison, George Mason and a host of other Founding Fathers clearly spells it out. The term 'the people' is used in a number of places throughout the cornerstone documents, and in each case the term means the civilians and citizens of the United States, each as an individual and not as part of any organization. Therefore, the idea that the Second Amendment is about the military, or the police, is a 20th century interpretation brought about by those who are in favor of removing guns from our society. Punctuation and capitalization did not change the meaning of the Amendment one iota.

In regards to the government disregarding International Law, I very much agree with you. But I can't see our government authorizing nuclear or chemical strikes on its own civilians. At that point, they'd have gained power over what? A country that is no longer inhabitable and likely to be shunned or attacked by outside forces. It isn't in their best interest. If the government was so inclined to do that, they would have already done it. The idea behind the gun control is to remove what they can through legislation, then any further removals can take place from house to house. It's doubtful that anybody will venture outside their house to help their neighbor retain their guns against those police or military dumb enough or power hungry enough to undertake the agenda of the government to disarm their citizens to make them more compliant. People will isolate themselves and hope they aren't next. Taking a stand now is the best method we have of preventing such actions. Numerous gun grabber politicians have already said that their plan is to reduce gun rights step by step. This is yet another step.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

March 8th, 2013, 2:29 pm

Blueskies

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 2862

Re: What? No gun control thread?

Quote:

First of all is the fallacy that the US military is so powerful that a few gun nuts can't overtake them. The US military easily defeated the Iraqi and Afghani militaries in a few short months, yet was bogged down for years by insurgencies. Why can't that happen here? To further confound the situation, how many American soldiers do you think will follow orders to fire upon American citizens? As a former soldier, I swore an oath to the Constitution, NOT the government, So I guess you could imagine where my loyalties lies.

A lot of gun nuts believe that there could be some sort of "tyrannical" government arising that would need to be fought off by the general populace. As if aliens one day could appear from outer space, replace the current regime, and rule in a dictatorial fashion. The government, by definition, exists because it has the consent of the majority of the governed. The founders were wrong (not the only thing they were wrong on -- see the 17 amendments added after the bill of rights) on guns being some kind of balancing force to a dictatorial government.

Comparing the original revolutionary war or the insurgents in Iraq to Americans fighting against their government is a false comparison. In both cases, it is a group of people repelling a foreign occupation. Americans using guns against their government today would be a civil war, not an insurrection, and the military would be involved on both sides.

Secondly, the notion that famous dictators disarmed their population before stepping up their evil schemes is a myth. Someone once wrote it, and people liked it so much they recycled it. But its mostly garbage with no historical basis.

I should clarify that I support the second amendment, as an ardent libertarian, on the grounds of personal freedom. Not on some delusional notions of a Red Dawn-like scenario.

March 12th, 2013, 9:06 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: What? No gun control thread?

Blueskies wrote:

Quote:

First of all is the fallacy that the US military is so powerful that a few gun nuts can't overtake them. The US military easily defeated the Iraqi and Afghani militaries in a few short months, yet was bogged down for years by insurgencies. Why can't that happen here? To further confound the situation, how many American soldiers do you think will follow orders to fire upon American citizens? As a former soldier, I swore an oath to the Constitution, NOT the government, So I guess you could imagine where my loyalties lies.

A lot of gun nuts believe that there could be some sort of "tyrannical" government arising that would need to be fought off by the general populace. As if aliens one day could appear from outer space, replace the current regime, and rule in a dictatorial fashion. The government, by definition, exists because it has the consent of the majority of the governed. The founders were wrong (not the only thing they were wrong on -- see the 17 amendments added after the bill of rights) on guns being some kind of balancing force to a dictatorial government.

Comparing the original revolutionary war or the insurgents in Iraq to Americans fighting against their government is a false comparison. In both cases, it is a group of people repelling a foreign occupation. Americans using guns against their government today would be a civil war, not an insurrection, and the military would be involved on both sides.

Secondly, the notion that famous dictators disarmed their population before stepping up their evil schemes is a myth. Someone once wrote it, and people liked it so much they recycled it. But its mostly garbage with no historical basis.

I should clarify that I support the second amendment, as an ardent libertarian, on the grounds of personal freedom. Not on some delusional notions of a Red Dawn-like scenario.

What about a government "by the people" acting contrary to the interests of the electorate? We don't have a parliamentary system such as the UK where the prime minister has to keep favor with the general populous.

What if the govt. starts exerting undue control over the populous and there is an uprising? What if the Nation does get more divided (there certainly is a trend) and Texas really does move to succeed? Do we fight it, or allow it? Do we go to war with Texas over it? I know I would honestly leave in a minute if they ever really did decide to leave the US. I would go to Texas because I more agree with their form of politics. It makes more sense to me. I like personal accountably over social entitlements.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... I think people having guns is a HUGE check against the power that local law enforcement officers have. IMO you'd see a ton more police corruption if citizen's weren't armed.

March 14th, 2013, 8:16 pm

Blueskies

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 2862

Re: What? No gun control thread?

wjb21ndtown wrote:

What about a government "by the people" acting contrary to the interests of the electorate? We don't have a parliamentary system such as the UK where the prime minister has to keep favor with the general populous.

What if the govt. starts exerting undue control over the populous and there is an uprising? What if the Nation does get more divided (there certainly is a trend) and Texas really does move to succeed? Do we fight it, or allow it? Do we go to war with Texas over it? I know I would honestly leave in a minute if they ever really did decide to leave the US. I would go to Texas because I more agree with their form of politics. It makes more sense to me. I like personal accountably over social entitlements.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... I think people having guns is a HUGE check against the power that local law enforcement officers have. IMO you'd see a ton more police corruption if citizen's weren't armed.

Texas is one of the most populous states in the country; if they succeeded, I'm sure others would as well, creating a replay of the civil war -- not the kind of "joe sixpack taking on the evil feds" most gun nuts have in mind when they talk about fighting a tyrannical government.

Also, I would say armed citizens has about 0 impact on keeping the police in line. Can you show me a case somewhere of a person shooting a cop on the grounds of self defense and getting off? If you can do that, I'll admit I'm wrong here. A cellphone video recorder is a much more potent weapon against police corruption.

What you're referring to with regard to Texas is not succeed or succession. It's secede or secession. Succeed and secede mean two very different things (a positive outcome vs. breaking away/separating).

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

What's funny is that while the federal government is compiling a list of law-abiding gun owners, we're compiling a list of those that will enforce those unconstitutional laws and where their families live. Think I'm joking?

_________________

March 15th, 2013, 4:18 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9596Location: Dallas

Re: What? No gun control thread?

Touchdown Jesus wrote:

Not to be "that guy", well I suppose I am...whatever..

What you're referring to with regard to Texas is not succeed or succession. It's secede or secession. Succeed and secede mean two very different things (a positive outcome vs. breaking away/separating).

What you're referring to with regard to Texas is not succeed or succession. It's secede or secession. Succeed and secede mean two very different things (a positive outcome vs. breaking away/separating).

I studied political science at WSU for 6 years, and never get that right. I wrote a whole paper about a tribe in Northeastern Portugal and their efforts to secede for I believe it was about 200 years, and they were finally making headway with the international community, and that had to be corrected at least a dozen times throughout the paper... Used to drive Professor Brad Roth nuts...

That said, either way, I'd be there in a minute if it happened. I can see Az joining them.

Blueskies... You made some claims about the Federal Government having the inherent authority of "the People," but what about situations where the Federal Govt. fails its role, such as in upholding its own laws, and allowing the States the ability to protect themselves in regards to immigration?

I think both Az and Texas can make a strong case for secession on those grounds.

Further, you miss the point entirely about "citizens shooting a cop and getting off"... The point is, cops can't go around like thugs ruling the populous BECAUSE people have guns. If they tried to abuse their authority it would come back to hurt them, and I do believe that private gun ownership stems and curbs that authority. Without private gun ownership I think you'd see police acting more like members of the mafia... Heck, in some instances they already do...

I'd like to see us go to a State police department only, and mix up officers and partners. I think it would really cut down on corruption... Same with the courts. These district level courts, where all the fines go to the municipality, are ridiculous. They care more about collecting fines than upholding the law.

March 15th, 2013, 6:07 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10066Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: What? No gun control thread?

Blueskies wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

What about a government "by the people" acting contrary to the interests of the electorate? We don't have a parliamentary system such as the UK where the prime minister has to keep favor with the general populous.

What if the govt. starts exerting undue control over the populous and there is an uprising? What if the Nation does get more divided (there certainly is a trend) and Texas really does move to succeed? Do we fight it, or allow it? Do we go to war with Texas over it? I know I would honestly leave in a minute if they ever really did decide to leave the US. I would go to Texas because I more agree with their form of politics. It makes more sense to me. I like personal accountably over social entitlements.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... I think people having guns is a HUGE check against the power that local law enforcement officers have. IMO you'd see a ton more police corruption if citizen's weren't armed.

Texas is one of the most populous states in the country; if they succeeded, I'm sure others would as well, creating a replay of the civil war -- not the kind of "joe sixpack taking on the evil feds" most gun nuts have in mind when they talk about fighting a tyrannical government.

Also, I would say armed citizens has about 0 impact on keeping the police in line. Can you show me a case somewhere of a person shooting a cop on the grounds of self defense and getting off? If you can do that, I'll admit I'm wrong here. A cellphone video recorder is a much more potent weapon against police corruption.

What keeps the police in line more now is the civil suits often brought against them for unjustified use of force. It doesn't always take a video to prove that. And if memory serves me, there has been an instance where a lawful homeowner has shot a police officer who has wrongfully raided their home. I recall reading about that a few years ago. The police shot the homeowner. Both he and the police officer he shot lived. The homeowner sued and won big because the police raided the wrong house, failed to announce themselves properly and failed to properly identify the homeowner as the would be criminal they were there to apprehend.

Most police are in favor of lawful gun ownership by citizens. And before anyone talks about the National Sheriff's Association or whatever, remember that A) a sherrif is an elected office, not necessarily law enforcement and B) the one Police Chief national organization that claims it is in favor of gun control does NOT represent the body of officers across the country. Too often police chiefs are tied politically to a mayor or council of a city and have 'left the barn' of law enforcement and their beliefs well behind.

And the idea that our government would NEVER do anything against the will of the populace is absolutely ridiculous in the extreme. The original gun control measure of 1994 was NOT supported by the majority of the nation. Prohibition was NOT supported by the majority of the nation. Abortion, removing religious objects from public ground, Obamacare, etc. are all examples of things that our politicians pass AGAINST the will of the majority of the people. Politicians no longer align themselves to the will of those who elected them. They align themselves to whatever is in their own best interests, regardless of whether it supports the majority vote of the people or not.

And for your information Blueskies, the additional Amendments added to the Constitution are not proof that they 'got things wrong' when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. It only shows that they laid the groundwork of our rights, but had to further define them further down the road as the situation called for it.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.